• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

FBI recommends no charges against Mrs Clinton: let the accusations begin. Will this help or hurt HRC?

The security clearance being talked about is the daily intelligence briefings that she and Trump will get when they're the official nominees of their party so that whomever wins is up to date on everything when they get into the office.
As i understand it, they don't actually need a clearance for that.
Just a big old Non Disclosure Agreement and their signature.
 
Don't know how credible this is yet, but former Representative Ellen Tauscher is saying
Tauscher has been a Hillary surrogate since 2008. She has been a Hillary emailgate apologist for a while. She is not exactly the most unbiased source.

Oh and about that ^^^^^

All three network evening broadcasts ignored State Department spokesman John Kirby’s explanation that two emails sent to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were erroneously marked confidential after a staffer failed to change the markings on a routine email that should have been marked sensitive but unclassified (SBU).

Journalists seized on FBI Director James Comey’s July 5 statement that “a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information” to claim that Comey, in the words of The Washington Post, “directly contradicted Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive materials ‘marked’ classified.”

But in his July 6 press briefing, State Department spokesman Kirby provided an explanation for the discrepancy, saying that the “markings were human error” and should not have been included in the documents, which were call sheets for Clinton. From the July 6 daily press briefing:

I’m not going to comment on their findings and recommendations or all the documents that they reviewed. I am aware that there have been media – a media report pointing to call sheets within the Clinton email set that appear to bear classification markings. So let me just talk to that in a sense.

Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level – prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call. The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Given this context, it appears the markings in the documents raised in the media report were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time that they were sent as an actual email.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/0...y-information-regarding-clinton-emails/211397

So much for your dismissal of the source. Looks like she was 100% correct. :rolleyes:
 
I'm actually glad the stupid Republicans insisted on dragging FBI Director Comey to their *hearing* to beat up on him for not giving them the prosecution recommendation witch submersion they demanded. Because of it, we have plenty of clarification and corrections to his original July 5 statement, and so now we know that we are down to maybe 1 and probably zero "classified" emails in HRC's server.

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television. Stupid Republicans should have been satisfied with that.
 
I'm actually glad the stupid Republicans insisted on dragging FBI Director Comey to their *hearing* to beat up on him for not giving them the prosecution recommendation witch submersion they demanded. Because of it, we have plenty of clarification and corrections to his original July 5 statement, and so now we know that we are down to maybe 1 and probably zero "classified" emails in HRC's server.

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television. Stupid Republicans should have been satisfied with that.

Gauging from their apologists on this board I'm afraid they're too stupid to see the significance.
 
I'm actually glad the stupid Republicans insisted on dragging FBI Director Comey to their *hearing* to beat up on him for not giving them the prosecution recommendation witch submersion they demanded. Because of it, we have plenty of clarification and corrections to his original July 5 statement, and so now we know that we are down to maybe 1 and probably zero "classified" emails in HRC's server.

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television. Stupid Republicans should have been satisfied with that.

Your relentless fact mangling to the point of spinning untruths is stunning. Another correction...

RS: "so now we know that we are down to maybe 1 and probably zero "classified" emails in HRC's server". No, we are not down to one or zero classified emails found on the Hillary server(s). We are down to "one or none" that had classification markings"... (out of 3). HOWEVER...

Politfact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ndings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

Even though just two emails out of many thousands were marked classified at the time they were sent, it’s more than the number Clinton cited: zero.

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains.

But...you know...the posting of 110 emails with classified information was...er "unintentional" (wink).
 
I'm actually glad the stupid Republicans insisted on dragging FBI Director Comey to their *hearing* to beat up on him for not giving them the prosecution recommendation witch submersion they demanded. Because of it, we have plenty of clarification and corrections to his original July 5 statement, and so now we know that we are down to maybe 1 and probably zero "classified" emails in HRC's server.

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television. Stupid Republicans should have been satisfied with that.

Gauging from their apologists on this board I'm afraid they're too stupid to see the significance.
as for Comey he's not too sophisticated on information technology either. Yes bad guys will be interested but bad guys will leave traces just like everybody else. So if there were attempts there will be evidence. As I understand it no one has found any footprints, even tweezer marks, among Hillary's files. Pretty sure foreign entities aren't that interested in what Hillary emails. They have better ways to get usable information than wasting time doing such low level stuff.

Alt his is for the proselytizing set, those who don't even know thumbs are the key to being human, who will believe anything even the acolytes say.
 
The partisans and the Clinton-haters have been trying to make a mountain of the email molehill for months. You'd think after their massively embarrassing efforts in Benghazi-gate, they'd have learned something by now.
 
The partisans and the Clinton-haters have been trying to make a mountain of the email molehill for months. You'd think after their massively embarrassing efforts in Benghazi-gate, they'd have learned something by now.

That's the thing though. Accusations are enough to keep the base angry and paranoid. It doesn't matter that there was no wrongdoing w/ respect to Benghazi. It doesn't matter that this email thing was nothing. And it won't matter that this new investigation will turn up nothing of substance either. Just keep the accusations flowing, one after the next. They've been doing it for 25 years with relatively little cost to them, at least in terms of popularity. So why stop now? Couple a complete lack of shame with a base chock-full o' imbeciles and there's nothing stopping them.

This isn't the end of anything. It's just the latest in a long line of overblown horse-shit accusations that will follow Hillary Clinton until the day she dies. Hell, after she dies conservatives will make up even more shit about her because she won't be around to defend herself.
 
Gauging from their apologists on this board I'm afraid they're too stupid to see the significance.
as for Comey he's not too sophisticated on information technology either. Yes bad guys will be interested but bad guys will leave traces just like everybody else. So if there were attempts there will be evidence. As I understand it no one has found any footprints, even tweezer marks, among Hillary's files. Pretty sure foreign entities aren't that interested in what Hillary emails. They have better ways to get usable information than wasting time doing such low level stuff.

Alt his is for the proselytizing set, those who don't even know thumbs are the key to being human, who will believe anything even the acolytes say.

Perhaps you should alert the New York Times of your "expertise" on this matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...ail-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html?_r=0

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton’s systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”
...
“Reading between the lines and following Comey’s logic, it does sound as if the F.B.I. believes a compromise of Clinton’s email is more likely than not,” said Adam Segal, the author of “Hacked World Order,” who studies cyberissues at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Sophisticated attackers would have known of the existence of the account, would have targeted it and would not have been seen.”

Mr. Comey couched his concern on Tuesday by repeating the intelligence community’s favorite phrase — “we assess” — four times, but ultimately reached no hard-and-fast conclusion. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” he said.

...Mr. Comey painted a different picture.

“Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact,” he said....".

Sounds like you don't necessarily leave traces of intercepts, especially if communicating over the local systems controlled by hostile governments (as she did in visits to hostile nations).

In addition:

“Given the framing of it — we didn’t see the evidence, but given the nature of the attackers, we wouldn’t expect to see any evidence — I read the FBI statement as saying it was very likely that Russian and/or Chinese intelligence gained access to her personal email,” said Adam Segal, a Chinese cyber policy expert and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The most likely suspects are Russia, China and Israel “in that order,” said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with tech companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent.
“Certainly foreign military and intelligence services,” said Ben Johnson, a former National Security Agency employee and now chief security strategist at security firm Carbon Black. “They’re going to have a lot of means and motives to do this.”
Really “any country that’s looking to potentially have adversarial relations with us or just [desires] more relations with us,” Johnson added, citing Middle East countries specifically.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/fbi-clinton-email-hacked-experts-225132#ixzz4DraVcMXN
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 
The partisans and the Clinton-haters have been trying to make a mountain of the email molehill for months. You'd think after their massively embarrassing efforts in Benghazi-gate, they'd have learned something by now.
Yeah, but look at their audience-these people are still talking about Obama turning the US into a Caliphate, what, 7 1/2 years into his presidency.
 
The partisans and the Clinton-haters have been trying to make a mountain of the email molehill for months. You'd think after their massively embarrassing efforts in Benghazi-gate, they'd have learned something by now.

Months? This is part of a larger operation that has been going on for years.

When Clinton first began her run for Senate, the "Clinton-haters" (many of whom participated in or supported the witch hunt against Bill) rightly figured that it was a stepping stone to her eventual White House run. That painted a target on her back (well, a larger one) from the get-go, and her opponents have been planning this campaign/crusade since the former First Lady moved to Chappaqua.

When she fired up her Presidential aspirations for the 2008 campaign, these folks became what I suppose is a combination of panicked and elated. They'd finally get the chance to use all that dirt they thought they'd dug up to deny her the White House. The showdown they'd been planning for was at hand.

Then, of course, Barack "OMG his middle name is HUSSEIN!!!" Obama came in and snatched the Democratic nomination away. I have no doubt that the same people who figured her Senate run was a stepping stone to the Presidency again (rightly) figured she would run to be Obama's successor. So since 2008 they've been gathering data and spending time in the woodshed planning their eventual attacks.

The Benghazi attack - from the Republicans' view the worst terrorist attack in American history - was a boon to them, as has been the email "scandal," but had those events never occurred, I have no doubt that the GOP would have ginned up another scandal to investigate, another outrage to have hearings about, and another mole hill to make into a mountain.

They've been working on this shit since Hillary handed over her first set of keys to the White House.
 
I see. We're playing word games. I'll rephrase the statement. Scott Adams is not qualified to give an assessment, evaluation, appraisal, analysis, recommendation, or any other synonym from a legal standpoint. He is just pissing in the wind like the rest of us. If you have evidence that he is then please provide it.

James Comey, on the other hand, is qualified to make a <insert synonym here> from a legal standpoint.

And no, having a law degree does not automatically make one qualified. I would not ask Judge Judy for her opinion on the case even though she is extremely qualified to comment on family law.

Comey is in the worst position to make an appraisal because his future very likely depends on Hillary Clinton.
He is clearly compromised. His legal qualifications don't suddenly mean he isn't human.

He has had enormous pressure on him and like most of us would have he cracked. He came out sounding like a corrupt fool. Though Clinton supporters are less likely to see that
Or as Scott Adams thinks he sacrificed himself rather than play such a big role in who will be President.

Totally agree. I'm sure that Comey couldn't earn a dime more than $750,000 per year in the private sector. He needs HRC to keep him in the public sector, or else he'd have to lay off a butler or two.
 
Comey is in the worst position to make an appraisal because his future very likely depends on Hillary Clinton.
He is clearly compromised. His legal qualifications don't suddenly mean he isn't human.

He has had enormous pressure on him and like most of us would have he cracked. He came out sounding like a corrupt fool. Though Clinton supporters are less likely to see that
Or as Scott Adams thinks he sacrificed himself rather than play such a big role in who will be President.

Totally agree. I'm sure that Comey couldn't earn a dime more than $750,000 per year in the private sector. He needs HRC to keep him in the public sector, or else he'd have to lay off a butler or two.

Comey doesn't need the money. He worked for a hedge fund for several years and made plenty of money.

- - - Updated - - -

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television.
Wow...a stern talking to. Hillary will no doubt stop telling lies and being corrupt now.:D
 
Hillary Clinton disqualifies herself

A nation that values a commonly held belief in the obligations of leadership couldn't ever elect someone like this. Advocating for someone like this would be seen as shameful.

Only a corrupt nation could do so, a nation that values a Chicago-style political payoff more than it values a belief that leaders should be held to ethical standards.Once a nation acknowledges publicly that it is corrupt (as in national elections), that its people care only for what they can put in their pocket or stuff into their mouths, something terrible can happen.

If Hillary Clinton were anyone but a candidate for president, she would have been drummed out of government service for her reckless and unethical behavior. You don't promote such people. You send them away.

You don't elect them president.

Why does anyone want a leader like this?
 
Totally agree. I'm sure that Comey couldn't earn a dime more than $750,000 per year in the private sector. He needs HRC to keep him in the public sector, or else he'd have to lay off a butler or two.

Comey doesn't need the money. He worked for a hedge fund for several years and made plenty of money.

- - - Updated - - -

Director Comey did try to give HRC a stern talking to on national television.
Wow...a stern talking to. Hillary will no doubt stop telling lies and being corrupt now.:D

1. I was being sarcastic. So sorry you are unable to recognize the use of irony
2. It isn't HRC telling the lies or being corrupt - no matter how many times you make your unsubstantiated partisan claims otherwise

bye bye
 
According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.
 
According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.
 
Dear Mods:
Please consider creating an "I hate Clinton" subfora where all irrational Clinton bashing can be stored. Thank you.
 
According to Comey the emails that contained classified information were not marked as such in the header, and that paragraphs in the body of the email would begin with a (c) if that particular paragraph contained confidential information. Comey said his impression was that Clinton was not aware of that.

So that would mean she sent classified material but possibly did not intend to.
Is there any precedent for a ore lowly person not having the book thrown at them for such a thing?

She got special treatment.

a) Then she and/or her staff sent (and stored) 110 emails containing classified material "unintentionally" (including 8 emails with top secret SAP material).
b) Then she and/or her staff "unintentionally" forgot that they were retaining thousands of emails that were likely to be upgraded to classified.
c) And her lawyer, later, "unintentionally" covered her tracks by erasing all other data (thousands of which we now know was work related), by accident.

Comedy tonight!
 
Back
Top Bottom